I'm a bit disappointed that we're discussing the results of a vote after it was taken, these things have to be voiced and discussed before the voting begins, not after a result you may disagree with has been tallied.
Chico Venancio Em qui., 16 de fev. de 2023 às 19:51, Joe Sutherland < jsutherl...@wikimedia.org> escreveu: > Hi there, > > There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the >> conversation/statistics: >> - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from >> smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting >> infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. >> - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For >> example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors >> been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to >> the populations in their respective communities. > > > Unfortunately this kind of breakdown data isn't possible with SecurePoll - > that's by design, since the system anonymises votes as they're placed. So > there would be no way to know who exactly a "yes" or a "no" came from in > the data, and thus no way to get more granular data (at least as things are > set up right now). > > best, > Joe > > -- > *Joe Sutherland* (he/him) > Lead Trust and Safety Specialist > Wikimedia Foundation > > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 10:59, effe iets anders <effeietsand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I agree that these are valid concerns, as is the point that we should >> consider how the 'homewiki' (or whatever demographic you choose to follow) >> distribution across those votes impacts the outcome. I think there will be >> general agreement that more participation would be great (although I feel >> that I have to admit, that this time around I didn't vote myself: just >> didn't get to reading the proposals carefully enough this time.) >> >> There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the >> conversation/statistics: >> - is the approval rating significantly different among voters from >> smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting >> infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. >> - are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For >> example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors >> been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to >> the populations in their respective communities. >> >> A turnout this size is maybe not a high percentage of eligible voters, >> but note that we intentionally set our eligibility criteria low. A low >> percentage is then only a natural outcome. I do wonder: what kind of >> percentage would make colleagues more confident? And how could we >> realistically achieve those percentages? >> >> Best, >> Lodewijk >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:55 PM <adel.nehaoua.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من >>> الناحية التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية >>> وليس على المحتوى: >>> * نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً من بين 68745 ناخب >>> مؤهل >>> * عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع >>> العالمي النشط >>> * استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها من >>> أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية >>> والتساؤل: >>> * لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على >>> المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت مشاركتها ضئيلة فهي >>> غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد >>> يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري >>> * هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة الانفاذ؟ >>> * هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها أو >>> نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟ >>> تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة >>> ودفعها للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي >>> انطباعا خاطئا >>> تحياتي >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BITDAPENFZSAYHRFR3HDPNNLOD54TWWR/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MK2R3FD2LRBGXU5OXB6QMSX57JFL2YHP/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W4I3D34W3ZLMNSU73AYUTFY2V47DJ77J/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/S2OBIY4LPB32KGOMIWQ3EH6K4FHQMHIP/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
